okay, so i am just posting a very basic version of my case that i am running saturday at my school's "home" tournament. i look forward to possibly using this debate to strengthen my actual cases. and good luck to my opponent, whoever that will be.

Definitions
Democracy: Democracy refers to a system of government which derives its power from the consent of the majority and governs according to the will of the majority.
Civil Disobedience: Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands, or intentions of a government or of an occupying power.
Appropriate: Proper or suitable for a particular person or place or condition.
Justice: The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
Just: A confrontation between opposing groups in which each attempts to harm or gain power over the other, as with bodily force or weapons.
Fight: purposeful violent conflict intended to establish dominance over the opposition.

1.Civil Disobedience (CD) leads to and justifies violence
2.Justification defeats the purpose of civil disobedience
a. CD fosters disrespect for the law in general
b....forgot...
3. Civil disobedience leads to polarization

1. Civil disobedience leads to and JUSTIFIES violence
Civil disobedience frequently leads to violence on the part of at least one party involved, be it the government or the advocates breaking the law. The disobedience may spark violent government retaliation. Myanmar example. Violence could even occur on the advocate's part if met with government backlash. Or the advocates may resort to violence. While generally the intentions of civil disobedience are non-violent, once the campaign is started it is out of the hands of the originators. Others may commit violent acts in the name of civil disobedience. Or the originators may simply resort to violence.

2. Justification defeats the purpose of civil disobedience
a. CD fosters disrespect for the law in general.
b. still don't remember...
a.Civil disobedience will foster disrespect for the law in general. If civil disobedience is justified instead of condemned, citizens could draw the conclusion that breaking the law is okay if they disagree with it. This illusion could become a reality if citizens consistently disobey laws because they do not agree with them. Not only does this render the government advocates are addressing powerless, but it makes it nearly impossible to attract the public's attention. If people break the law consistently because they don't like it, then disobedience becomes the norm, even if it truly has a worthy cause behind it. Thus justifying civil disobedience defeats its purpose.

3. Civil disobedience leads to polarization
If a CD campaign for any reason fails to reach and convince its audience, it can be dangerous to the cause. A failed or even poorly executed CD campaign can cause the public and the government to increase hostility to the cause, which only creates an obstacle for the cause. The moral re-evaluation that advocates seek from the majority is then much harder to come by.

Haha! A T2 Debater! I'm a Policy Debater myself, but I judged a Public Forum round this past weekend. Where do you debate at?

Also, I believe that you're taking the con side of the argument, because you're saying Civil Disobedience bad. Also, as a warning, I may go a little Policy ish. With that said, let's begin.

Your first tag for your first point is completely contradictory. The fact that Civil Disobedience leads to violence and is justified basically throws you into the Pro side. You're trying to say that Civil Disobedience is bad and should not be allowed, yet you then say it's justified? Even in your card, there is no warrant for your tag. The evidence is powertagged. It says that Civil Disobedience may occur. Never does it say that it is justified. This point is not valid, and cannot be allowed in this debate.

Onto your second point. Your second point is completely irrelavent to your first point, and must be treated as such. Again, the warrant for the card is not there. Again, it says could, not will. Your card is lacking the emphasis you want it to. Get another card if you want someone to be convinced otherwise.

You also seem to forget that people right now disobey the government in violent ways anyway. The fact is, people will do what they want, regardless of what's going on. It would be better to allow Civil Disobedience. Why? It allows people to show how strongly they care about a topic. We have had times in our own history where we've seen Civil disobedience go fine, until it was intervened upon. Only when it was intervened upon did violence show.

Now onto the last point. This card doesn't apply. Civil Disobedience is meant for people to voice their opinions, for their voices to be heard. The card makes no sense.

Thre was no argumenation made by the opposing side. All my attacks stand. He claims issues and such to his no posting. Do not allow this to hold you back from voting on the points made against his case.

Sorry i couldn't get on, like i said before, i have a lot going on, and now it's just all piling up. sorry i couldn't forecast all of it.
so...
First i'll discuss my opponent's points, and then my own.

I would like to point out that my opponent has presented no evidence to back up his side, even he has no arguments. He only argues against my points (and then about the manner of my points, not the content), and does not present any arguments of his own. As Pro, he has a responsibility to present reasons why voters should side with him, why the resolution is right. Now i know i was absent for the middle of the debate, but this is no reason why he could not present his own points. As he did not present any case, and as such we cannot side Pro.

My opponent's arguments are basically all about how i debated, not what i debated, but i will move on to his arguments regardless...
His first:
I am sorry for that, i was going to add a card to my case, then didn't because of the 4 minute first speech limit, and forgot to take off the tag for that card. But what that card says is basically that By justifying CD you have to (or attempt to) justify violence, and violence is bad, yadayadayada. please do not ignore the rest of that point.

"Onto your second point. Your second point is completely irrelavent to your first point, and must be treated as such. Again, the warrant for the card is not there. Again, it says could, not will. Your card is lacking the emphasis you want it to. Get another card if you want someone to be convinced otherwise.

You also seem to forget that people right now disobey the government in violent ways anyway. The fact is, people will do what they want, regardless of what's going on. It would be better to allow Civil Disobedience. Why? It allows people to show how strongly they care about a topic. We have had times in our own history where we've seen Civil disobedience go fine, until it was intervened upon. Only when it was intervened upon did violence show." - Kasemei

I do not understand his whole first paragraph, i would ask him to clarify, but it would do me no good due to my schedule cramming in the previous rounds (again, i apologize). As far as i have been taught, my second point must not be completely tied in with the first. Obviously it has to be on topic but i do not catch what he is getting at.
Then his second paragraph is the only instance in which he actually attacks my content, and even then my point defeats his attack.
He says that people disobey the government violently anyways. So it would be better to allow CD. I do not follow that logic nor does it stand up to my point. He says it allows people to show how strongly they care about a topic. But it's impossible for that expression to have effect if breaking the law (violently) is already the norm. Then he seems to move on to an argument best met with my first point. He says CD often goes fine, until it is intervened with. then violence occurs. This is what i am trying to say in my first point. CD causes violence, whether it is the government being violent or the advocates. Even if the CD is non-violent, it leads to violence. Violence is an effect of CD.

On my third point, he says this:

"Now onto the last point. This card doesn't apply. Civil Disobedience is meant for people to voice their opinions, for their voices to be heard. The card makes no sense."

I do not see how the card does not apply. I would gladly clarify in an email or comment, since this is the last round. And of course CD is meant to help voice opinions. What i am saying is that the method of CD is ineffective and often hurtful to the cause. If the campaign fails to reach the audience, it can INCREASE hostility to the cause instead of decreasing it. People see that the group is breaking the law, and thus the group is labeled not activists, but criminals, wackos, and as overbearing. People constantly say that how CD helps voice opinions is that it gets publicity. Unfortunately, we must look at the kind of attention this gets. Breaking the law to make a point all too often marginalizes the group. They are considered radicals, etc. Thus it is ineffective.

In review, i would like to lay out how my opponent has failed in his attempt to affirm the resolution.

1. First and most important, no case. No reasons to affirm the resolution. This is inexcusable. Even with my absence in previous rounds, he could have presented a case, even just one reason why we must affirm. But instead, he does not, and thus we must side Con.

2. He attacks how i debate, mistakes in structure, etc. He fails to attack my content.

3. The one time he does attack my subject matter, it only affirms my arguments.

So, if the voters choose to look past my absence, they will find that Con is the side that presents a case and refutations that a) exist and b) affirm my side. So here is a quick, one to three (maybe four?) sentence summary of my points:

1. Whether on purpose, or on accident, CD leads to violence on the part of either government or advocate.

2. CD fosters disrespect for the law. If we justify breaking the law because we disagree with it, then disobedience is the new norm. thus breaking the law does not stand out, because it is all around us.

3. The kind of attention CD gets hurts and does not help any cause. It only sets the nation against said cause and can marginalize the group.

Just want to clarify. I am a GIRL.
Next, all my opponent's points will be in quotes, followed by my refutation underneath.

"Sorry i couldn't get on, like i said before, i have a lot going on, and now it's just all piling up. sorry i couldn't forecast all of it.
so...
First i'll discuss my opponent's points, and then my own."

That is no excuse. I'm sorry, but if you can't finish a debate, don't start one. I was hoping for an intense debate for all four rounds. Instead, we debate only two of the rounds. In legitimate NFL Debate, this is unacceptable.

The fact that you waited until the LAST argument to present all your points leaves me with limited time to counter all of the new points you would have brought up.

"I would like to point out that my opponent has presented no evidence to back up his side, even he has no arguments. He only argues against my points (and then about the manner of my points, not the content), and does not present any arguments of his own. As Pro, he has a responsibility to present reasons why voters should side with him, why the resolution is right. Now i know i was absent for the middle of the debate, but this is no reason why he could not present his own points. As he did not present any case, and as such we cannot side Pro."

The reason I didn't present any case, nor did I need to present any case was the fact that in and of yourself your case is flawed. The fact is, the technicality flaws in your case alone would lose you a round, and that is how I attacked your case. You cannot win a round with a completely powertagged case with no warrants in your evidence. As a judge who has judged Policy and Public Forum, I would immediately vote you the loss for NOT presenting a viable case.
This is completely unheard of, and to bring such an unpolished case to the table gives no room for argument, just critique on how poor the case structure is.

Another point is the fact that you CONTRADICT your ENTIRE case with one of your points, which specifically says that Civil Disobedience is JUSTIFIED. If it's justified, there is no reason whatsoever for your case, and you admit that I as the pro is right to support Civil Disobedience.

"My opponent's arguments are basically all about how i debated, not what i debated, but i will move on to his arguments regardless...
His first:
I am sorry for that, i was going to add a card to my case, then didn't because of the 4 minute first speech limit, and forgot to take off the tag for that card. But what that card says is basically that By justifying CD you have to (or attempt to) justify violence, and violence is bad, yadayadayada. please do not ignore the rest of that point."

You cannot ask a judge to consider a point you were 'supposed to have added'. That's completely abusive to the opposing side. In a round, you can't read your pro case and during crossfire say "Oh, I'm sorry. I ran out of time in my speech, so I'm going to add a card of evidence in crossfire." If you wanted that card to be in your original case, you should have put it there. To everyone who is voting on this debate, you must not allow him to do this. For one, he even destroys the formality of the debate by saying yadayadayada.

He claims to have wanted to put the card in. However, none of us can know that because he did not. You cannot allow him to put this in here in the closing argument. You must go off of what he stated in the opening statement, which means his point has been proven to be contradictory. He gave the win to the Pro side just in his opening argument alone.

"Then his second paragraph is the only instance in which he actually attacks my content, and even then my point defeats his attack.
He says that people disobey the government violently anyways. So it would be better to allow CD. I do not follow that logic nor does it stand up to my point. He says it allows people to show how strongly they care about a topic. But it's impossible for that expression to have effect if breaking the law (violently) is already the norm. Then he seems to move on to an argument best met with my first point. He says CD often goes fine, until it is intervened with. then violence occurs. This is what i am trying to say in my first point. CD causes violence, whether it is the government being violent or the advocates. Even if the CD is non-violent, it leads to violence. Violence is an effect of CD."

There is no proof that Civil Disobedience leads to violence. The card says, potentially leads to violence. However, that's not the case. Not with Martin Luther King, where he allowed himself to be arrested peacefully for Civil Disobedience. These people are willing to be arrested peacefully. There's no need for violence when the people who are committing the Civil Disobedience are coming quietly.

"I do not see how the card does not apply. I would gladly clarify in an email or comment, since this is the last round. And of course CD is meant to help voice opinions. What i am saying is that the method of CD is ineffective and often hurtful to the cause. If the campaign fails to reach the audience, it can INCREASE hostility to the cause instead of decreasing it. People see that the group is breaking the law, and thus the group is labeled not activists, but criminals, wackos, and as overbearing. People constantly say that how CD helps voice opinions is that it gets publicity. Unfortunately, we must look at the kind of attention this gets. Breaking the law to make a point all too often marginalizes the group. They are considered radicals, etc. Thus it is ineffective."

How many times have we seen Civil Disobedience work in the world? In MANY places, in many situations. It's empirically proven. You say that if a campaign fails to reach an audience, it can increase hostility. There's no proof on that. You're now trying to advocate a scenario where no campaign would exist. That would NOT work. Without Civil Disobedience, other people would do who knows what to make their opinions known. The fact is, Civil Disobedience gives people a means to express their thoughts, for others to hear their thoughts, and for people to come together. People who share the same beliefs and hopes.

"In review, i would like to lay out how my opponent has failed in his attempt to affirm the resolution.

1. First and most important, no case. No reasons to affirm the resolution. This is inexcusable. Even with my absence in previous rounds, he could have presented a case, even just one reason why we must affirm. But instead, he does not, and thus we must side Con."

I've already proven that there's no case to attack. Your structure in and of itself destroys your own case, as does your points. Also, again, I have already stated. Civil Disobedience gives the people a voice to speak with, and to be heard.

"2. He attacks how i debate, mistakes in structure, etc. He fails to attack my content."

Your content in your cards do not support your tags, thus there is nothing to attack.

"3. The one time he does attack my subject matter, it only affirms my arguments."

You cannot assume that by you misunderstanding my attack, that it affirms your argument where it clearly does not.

The fact is, Pro has clearly won this debate. For one, the Con side did not show up for 2 rounds, thus wasting the education and debateability of this debate. Next, he contradicts himself in his own opening statement. After that, he doesn't provide any substantial reasons to vote Con. Pro is the way to go.

I've had crap happen like that to me and my friends a lot. For crying out loud, my friend had a gun go off in his face as he was cleaning it. The shot killed him. It's understandable, but either way, I have to hammer away the points to get the win.

I understand there is a difference between wanting to post, and not being able to post. However, for me debate is something that if I can win, I need to win. Since you weren't able to post, granted there was a circumstance, I needed to emphasis that point. Granted it sounded bad, but I needed to do it. That's how an argument goes. I'm sorry.

holyshit. this isn't "formal" and i could care less about what would go on in a round. This was just for fun. and i'm terribly sorry that i started a debate THE NIGHT BEFORE MY BEST FRIEND GOT SHITFACED AND RAPED. I SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FORECAST THAT. This isn't some bullshit story for sympathy or to make up for my absence. That really happened, i wish otherwise obviously, and i wish that i could have posted, but if you can't tell i was really busy. god, now i remember why i hate policy. and sorry if this comment sounds bitchy. I hope you understand considering the circumstances.

k, so i'm sorry, chances are i'm not going to be able to post a whole argument second round. we'll see, but i have a shitload of homework and my best friend is in a serious crisis. hopefully things will work out and i'll be able to post, but i'm not sure.
toodles.